[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Membership] Peripheral comments on MAC recommendations
Thank you Daniel for making some explanation why there should be no
As I am living in Malaysia, and often meet people from less developed
part of the world, I have to repeat what I said previously, that many
Interent community peple in Asia is living good standard of life in their
own country yet in terms of US Dollars, they are not paid that much
I remember that Mongolian Prime Minister was making US$200
or less a month, when we visited there in 97.
Many university teachers, lectuerers are making about the same
in say Indonesia, I heard. I do not want to make too much direct reference,
but rather ask each of you to think hard - how to make ICANN a truely
global entity with open, inclusive and equal access/participation from all
corners of the world.
I fully agree that we need responsible participatoin and must have
good measures against fraud or other 'evil' attempts.
But I do not see that charging $50 or $100 for individual members
is the major solution/effective measures against these threat.
It has its own function, I understand, maybe, psychologically, but
in reality those who really want to make fraud can easily pay that
much and will try - even you need 300 people or 3000, they can
'pay' for that. I still remember that some people are making
rumors about a particular company paying a lot of money to
influence IFWP/ICANN process.
IF these rumors are true, which I do not think so, naiively perhaps,
that can easily total up to $50,000 or double than that.
And by the same token, by making the fees zero, we can expect
the counter forces, those who have good wills and sense of
responsibilities can easily join and recuruit their peers to join.
So again, in my thinking, the zero fee is not much relevant to
izumi from Malaysia (originally from Tokyo)
At 10:28 99/4/29 +0200, Daniel Kaplan wrote:
> A 21:34 28/04/99 +0200, Mark Measday a $BqD(Brit :
> However the economics looks dangerous. ICANN would be promising to send
> mail and authenticate theoretically every internet user in the world,
> that's going to require staff, databases and a mailing operation (unless an
> efficient internet alternative can be found or membership can be subsumed
> into another existing entity like ISOC). That's probably ten dollars a head
> by the time you have a few thousand members. Surely it would be
> cost-efficient to charge a flat fee?
> Well, I'm not so sure. Speaking of myself (but being a member of the MAC),
> I believe:
> - We don't anticipate that many people to join AL membership. We'll be
> happy if we're wrong. If we're right, though, total cost will be very
> bearable, even if cost-per-member is high.
> - Since the membership fee will have to be low in any case (at least we're
> sure to have consensus on that in the MAC), collecting it might add another
> burden, and probably cost more than it brings. In many countries people
> don't have credit card, and anyway we can't make credit cards mandatory
> even where they are heavily used. Other means of collecting money, in
> various currencies of course, will be extremely costly.
> However, I suddenly wonder: Why haven't we contemplated charging
> organizations and not individuals? Is it a silly idea?
> And the question of demographic pricing is incorrect.
> Internet users in deprived areas are the rich elites. They are well able to
> bear the fees. Flat fees would be much simpler to operate. Also on-line
> registration as below.
> Thay are also students, teachers and researchers in public universities,
> civil servants... Who are often reasonably well-off for their country, but
> very poor for developed countries' standards. In Vietnam, if you make
> U.S.$200 a month, you're a wealthy person.
> How will this reflect global diversity? Either members join as they wish
> (i.e. approximately North America 45% Europe 30% AP 20% LA 5% Africa 1% or
> will you be prioritising on price?
> As they wish. There should be no procedure for accepting or rejecting
> members, except by verifying that they provide the necessary information.
> However, ICANN should develop a program in order to reach out to the
> Internet community, giving priority to areas where users are least informed
> and likely to join spontaneously.
> Why not assume that most people are honest and allow on-line registration
> to stand, with publication of the registrants? Then details could be
> required if challenged, conceivably paid for by the challenger. This should
> minimise the cost of registration, voter fraud and allow quick and easy
> on-line registration.
> We discussed that at length in the MAC, of course. I supported offline
> verification (maybe an even more stringent one, such as require a copy of
> some official ID, which would not be checked by ICANN but just kept in
> store for whenever it might need it) because I believe the value of
> litigation against AL elections for some organization who have a stake in
> delaying reforms is so high, that we are sure they will do it unless ICANN
> can show it has taken reasonable steps to verify the validity of its
> membership (sorry for the non-lawyer language).
> Presumably the recent european data laws need to be taken into account
> also. There would be specific other restrictions on the use of data
> concerning EU citizens.
> Not many, I believe. Access and correction rights on his/her data by a
> member, which I don't anticipate to be a problem.
> Thank you Mark,
> * Les chiffres de l'Internet et du commerce $BqM(Bectronique *
> * http://www.finances.gouv.fr/comelec/travaux/ *
> Daniel Kaplan Consultant
> email@example.com http://www.dkaplan.net
> 5, rue de la V$BqH(Ba - 75012 Paris - France
> Tel +33 (0)1 5333 8881 Fax +33 (0)1 5333 8882
Izumi Aizu <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Principal, Asia Network Research (Malaysia)
Sec. General, Asia & Pacific Internet Association
>> WRITING THE HISTORY OF THE FUTURE <<